Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-06-2017, 10:24 PM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Reno
Posts: 1,052
Jolly Good for you, on getting the match!

My point, in part, is that state employers and teachers are a special case since in most cases they don't qualify for SS--that was the design of the retirement system years ago. So there is a difference, although I'm sure it doesn't seem like a difference if your foot isn't getting stomped on, or perhaps amputated is the term.

But, after all, it's just a promise. I'm quite civil, just pointing out that the words/terms one chooses to use are not quite "rational" analysis, for instance if you call a promise just a promise. My Okie father and grandfather would have kicked my ass if I tried that on them, but admittedly the former was a minister, not an "economist." And Oklahoma, not Texas--not sure whether that makes a difference!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
A bit snarky... so keep it civil so we do not see porky....

I do not see any difference in a state person getting a haircut from a promise than others that get one...



The only one that I can say that did not change when they changed the rules was the 401(k) match... I was getting 8% match... it was on a sliding scale based on how long you had worked... mega decided to lower the rates on the various levels... mine would have gone to 4% IIRC, but they did grandfather in whatever rate you had....
RobLJ is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-06-2017, 10:40 PM   #82
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLJ View Post
Jolly Good for you, on getting the match!

My point, in part, is that state employers and teachers are a special case since in most cases they don't qualify for SS--that was the design of the retirement system years ago. So there is a difference, although I'm sure it doesn't seem like a difference if your foot isn't getting stomped on, or perhaps amputated is the term.

But, after all, it's just a promise. I'm quite civil, just pointing out that the words/terms one chooses to use are not quite "rational" analysis, for instance if you call a promise just a promise. My Okie father and grandfather would have kicked my ass if I tried that on them, but admittedly the former was a minister, not an "economist." And Oklahoma, not Texas--not sure whether that makes a difference!
Sure, words matter... but you were using inflammatory words... 'lie' is kinda inflammatory.... you were also attacking ERD50s on his comments which were factually true but you did not like them...


I fail to see how teachers and police are better than I am (being a special case and all) when it comes to a pension.... I have had the two I qualify for reduced... so my foot has been stomped... seems yours has not...

Also, the state can elect to have you in SS.... one of my sisters worked for a university that was on the state retirement system and also contributed to SS... IIRC my friend who works for the city is also in SS...

And not trying to get snarky here, but the police and teachers have (or maybe not if it gets cut) a very sweet deal when it comes to pensions... I do not want to get into this argument as it is a sure sign of Porky...
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 11:08 PM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Reno
Posts: 1,052
Well, yes, states could elect to have you in SS 30 years ago if you were a K-12 teacher. Almost all states didn't, but let's not get that detail in the way of an argument.

So I don't think you have responded to how states can screw K-12 teachers who don't qualify for SS, 30 years after the fact, although of course they should have seen this coming in 1975, to be sure, since they had Early Retirement blog to let them know how idiotic they were to teach at K-12 in a state system.

Good for your sister, but she's at a university (like I was), not K-12. That's a YUGE difference. To be clear, K-12 as a rule don't qualify for Social Security as a non-choice in their retirement systems (and, yes, all K-12 teachers should have taught at universities, to be sure--bad choice.)

And lest I be accused of beating my own self-interest drum, I took the Texas optional retirement, which is like a 401k (defined contribution), not a pension. I did quite well, myself, based on returns, but I did so in 1980 suspecting that DW would take a corporate job out of the state and I would have to move (portability was the key issue).

To be clear, most states will NOT "elect" to include you in SS if you are K-12. Have not and will not.
University is a whole different kettle of fish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Sure, words matter. . .

Also, the state can elect to have you in SS.... one of my sisters worked for a university that was on the state retirement system and also contributed to SS... IIRC my friend who works for the city is also in SS...

And not trying to get snarky here, but the police and teachers have (or maybe not if it gets cut) a very sweet deal when it comes to pensions... I do not want to get into this argument as it is a sure sign of Porky...
RobLJ is offline  
Old 09-06-2017, 11:19 PM   #84
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Reno
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
'lie' is kinda inflammatory.... you were also attacking ERD50s on his comments which were factually true but you did not like them...
No, my view is that "just a promise" was not factually true, just a rhetorical choice and "attacking" could be viewed as "inflammatory" when in fact I disagreed with him and pointed out my disagreement on his choice of language.
To be clear, one can seem to be "factual" when choosing language that seems non-inflammatory, but "just a promise" is no more non-inflammatory than "lie."
But then my degree is in the humanities.
Using apparently non-loaded language is loaded language; I'm sure you will disagree, but that's how bureaucracies work. This is not an attack on you or ERD, just a point about the choice of language and how this works as an argument when it seems "non-argumentative" to some.
I realize most won't agree with me.
All language is argumentative and thus inflammatory, if you choose to view it as such. I don't. The whole point is to register a point of view and respond. I take ERD's view and yours quite seriously, and in fact I probably agree with a lot of it. But I don't agree with "just a promise." That's bureaucratic non-inflammatory language for "default," or my minister father would have called it a "lie"--but he was just a minister.
RobLJ is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 01:56 AM   #85
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I do not want to get into this argument as it is a sure sign of Porky...
So you're only jumping in with both feet.........
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 02:14 AM   #86
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
From what list?

I looked up and found this... most are Texas or Arizona... none from Illinois... looking further, the top one in Illinois is ranked 40th...

https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...t-high-schools



https://www.usnews.com/education/bes...gh-school-6601


OK... found a different list... Illinois has one... NJ is the big winner on this list...

America's Top High Schools 2015
Here ya go TP.

https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-public-schools/
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:12 AM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLJ View Post
No, my view is that "just a promise" was not factually true, just a rhetorical choice and "attacking" could be viewed as "inflammatory" when in fact I disagreed with him and pointed out my disagreement on his choice of language.
To be clear, one can seem to be "factual" when choosing language that seems non-inflammatory, but "just a promise" is no more non-inflammatory than "lie."
But then my degree is in the humanities.
Using apparently non-loaded language is loaded language; I'm sure you will disagree, but that's how bureaucracies work. This is not an attack on you or ERD, just a point about the choice of language and how this works as an argument when it seems "non-argumentative" to some.
I realize most won't agree with me.
All language is argumentative and thus inflammatory, if you choose to view it as such. I don't. The whole point is to register a point of view and respond. I take ERD's view and yours quite seriously, and in fact I probably agree with a lot of it. But I don't agree with "just a promise." That's bureaucratic non-inflammatory language for "default," or my minister father would have called it a "lie"--but he was just a minister.
So allow me to explain my language more fully. First though, I did see your comment about "states are quite happy to renege after the children are educated" as somewhat inflammatory/judgmental. I'm imploring posters to stick to the facts so this thread doesn't get closed. They kept the promise or they didn't - fact. Let's not presume anyone is "happy" about it. OK?

And let me explain "promise" - again, just a fact. I'm not implying that is any justification for not keeping the promise. Promises should be kept. But the fact is - is someone owes me $1,000, and they walk up and plop the money in my hand, I'm set. If they promise to pay me $1,000 at the end of the month, that's just a promise, and it is worth less, and subject to not being fulfilled. I need to recognize that, and not spend my $1,000 until I collected it. OK? And maybe that person had every intention of paying me at the end of the month, maybe he didn't "lie" at all. But then something happens, and he doesn't have the money as planned. He isn't happy, he wanted to keep his promise, but he couldn't, the money wasn't there.


Quote:
Well, yes, states could elect to have you in SS 30 years ago if you were a K-12 teacher. Almost all states didn't, but let's not get that detail in the way of an argument.

So I don't think you have responded to how states can screw K-12 teachers who don't qualify for SS, 30 years after the fact, although of course they should have seen this coming in 1975, to be sure,...
OK, let's discuss that. As I understand it, for several years IL did not make the payments into the pension system that it was supposed to, a large source of the problem. It appears the Unions really were not looking out for the teachers at that time. Not having SS makes these people more dependent on this state pension. So when the state isn't making payments, shouldn't that raise a RED, RED flag? We don't need to wait 30 years for the chickens to come home to roost if we see payments aren't being made at the time.

My Occam's Razor explanation is based on that analogy I made a while back - the TV or car company coming after you 20 years later, asking for more money for the old TV/car. If those companies raised the prices at the time, you would have objected and acted accordingly. So I think Occam says that the Unions/politicians agreed not to fund the pensions, as to do so would mean raising taxes and they didn't want to do that, as it would draw attention to the level of benefits these pensions provided. Instead, they said just kick the can down the road, State pensions in IL are constitutionally protected, they'll have to pay 30 years from now.

All I can tell you is, if I saw that my employer told me they would match my 401K contributions annually to the first 3%, but the money wasn't showing up in the account, I would heavily discount that matching amount in my retirement plans. That's the writing on the wall. And it appears the IL State Unions had the walls written on for them, and they chose to ignore it, and expect the taxpayers to make it all alright. I'm saying, they need to take some responsibility as well.

Not only do they not have SS (more accurately, their Union, speaking for them, agreed with the State to exclude them from paying into SS), but they never paid into any form of pension insurance, like me and my company did (PBGC). Where is the responsibility? As we often say, no one cares more about your money than you.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:40 AM   #88
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MissMolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,557
I do not think that what you choose to call a "promise" is proper description of what the state employees are told. The pension contracts with many of these states contain language that unequivocally states it is an inviolable contract. The definition of inviolable is:

adjective 1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.


2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable: inviolable secrecy.


So, far more than a "promise". And this inviolability is expressed to the employees starting with their date of hire and continues throughout their employment. They are told over and over again "this is why we can pay you less". We guarantee this pension to you. Not we "promise", but we GUARANTEE.



The taxpayers received services from the state at a discounted rate in the form of lower taxes due to the below market salaries that have been paid to the workers for decades. Time for the taxpayers to pay their fair share for these services they have been receiving. And don't forget - these retirees are taxpayers as well, so the increased taxes will hit their pocketbooks too.
__________________
And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.- Desiderata by Max Ehrmann
MissMolly is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:05 AM   #89
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post

Thanks or the list... it is an interesting list... but before my criticism of the list I will say that there is no way anybody can really rank high schools easily... one of the problems is that a 'good school' can be due to being in a rich area and them having advantages....

This list seems skewed to Il, NJ and NY... with a few others thrown in... so, looked at how it is graded and it seems survey of parents and students are up there along with teacher salaries.... well, we know that salaries are pretty high in these states as opposed to TX, MS, FL.... not sure why Il would have better survey results... but hey...

I know the lists that I had seems skewed also... so I am not being negative on this list exclusively... just in them all...
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:07 AM   #90
Administrator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland again!
Posts: 35,206
ERD, I have to agree with MissMolly here. For someone who likes precision as much as you , I think the use of "promise" is a bit vague. The pension obligations around the country differ in the type and nature of commitment, but many (most?) are contractual, and some are constitutional. Much different than a promise.
MichaelB is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:14 AM   #91
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
ERD, I have to agree with MissMolly here. For someone who likes precision as much as you , I think the use of "promise" is a bit vague. The pension obligations around the country differ in the type and nature of commitment, but many (most?) are contractual, and some are constitutional. Much different than a promise.
OK. I have to run, but:

Contract legal definition of contract

Quote:
) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.
Regardless, the premise holds - someone may be contractually obligated to do something for me, but that is not the same as "money in the bank", and it behooves us to treat it as such.

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:16 AM   #92
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 275
I'm not getting a pension and my RE plan assumes no SS. I do not claim to know anything about how pensions are funded and managed or even if they are more safe than SS. What I do know is if they are not able to payout the "promised" benefits no one will serve a day in prison. In today's declining moral, integrity and accountability society I would not count on any institution to deliver on any promises. I wonder if the people running these pension funds are relying on pensions to fund their retirement?
bradaz2488 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:24 AM   #93
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLJ View Post
Well, yes, states could elect to have you in SS 30 years ago if you were a K-12 teacher. Almost all states didn't, but let's not get that detail in the way of an argument.

So I don't think you have responded to how states can screw K-12 teachers who don't qualify for SS, 30 years after the fact, although of course they should have seen this coming in 1975, to be sure, since they had Early Retirement blog to let them know how idiotic they were to teach at K-12 in a state system.

Good for your sister, but she's at a university (like I was), not K-12. That's a YUGE difference. To be clear, K-12 as a rule don't qualify for Social Security as a non-choice in their retirement systems (and, yes, all K-12 teachers should have taught at universities, to be sure--bad choice.)

And lest I be accused of beating my own self-interest drum, I took the Texas optional retirement, which is like a 401k (defined contribution), not a pension. I did quite well, myself, based on returns, but I did so in 1980 suspecting that DW would take a corporate job out of the state and I would have to move (portability was the key issue).

To be clear, most states will NOT "elect" to include you in SS if you are K-12. Have not and will not.
University is a whole different kettle of fish.


But again, you seem to want to go back 30 years for some reason... I am looking at right now... can the pensions be paid as promised or not? Will the citizens of a state allow themselves to be taxed to an extreme in order to pay what many consider to be a very high pension? Throw in spiking and retiring early etc etc and it gets worse....


BTW, you seem to not say that SS also changed with teachers... if a teacher was married to someone who qualified to get SS, then along with their pension they got spousal SS.... it is gone now, but it was there... my mom and oldest sister are getting SS.... both were teachers...

Also, pensions have changed over the years... I have not kept up with it, but IIRC Texas changed the calculation to make payment later in life and also going to 5 years avg instead of 3... I think there were other changes, but not sure... were these 'lies' 30 years ago when someone started working now that they were changed? No, reality set in and changes were made...

The problems with some of these plans is the states did nothing.... they did not fund the pensions nor did they make minor changes years ago that could have saved some big money today...

Maybe a bad analogy, but this is kinda like Puerto Rico.... their debt was over $70 billion and there was zero chance of them taxing their way out of the problem... their debt was 'guaranteed' by law... but now there is a board that is going to reduce what is going to be paid to the bondholders... is it fair? NO, it is not... is it reality.... yes...

So, are some of these states going to have to reduce pension payouts? I suspect yes... but like here there is going to be a lot of upset people...


One last point since you seem to think I am fine with this... I have a mom and 3 sisters that are getting or will get gvmt pensions... also my best friend...
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:53 AM   #94
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
OldShooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: City
Posts: 7,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissMolly View Post
I do not think that what you choose to call a "promise" is proper description of what the state employees are told. The pension contracts with many of these states contain language that unequivocally states it is an inviolable contract. The definition of inviolable is:

adjective 1. prohibiting violation; secure from destruction, violence, infringement, or desecration: an inviolable sanctuary; an inviolable promise.

2. incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable: inviolable secrecy.

So, far more than a "promise". And this inviolability is expressed to the employees starting with their date of hire and continues throughout their employment. They are told over and over again "this is why we can pay you less". We guarantee this pension to you. Not we "promise", but we GUARANTEE.

The taxpayers received services from the state at a discounted rate in the form of lower taxes due to the below market salaries that have been paid to the workers for decades. Time for the taxpayers to pay their fair share for these services they have been receiving. And don't forget - these retirees are taxpayers as well, so the increased taxes will hit their pocketbooks too.
I posted early in this thread, so have been casually watching the debates and (IMO) hair splitting. This post did make me laugh out loud, though I didn't actually roll on the floor.

@MissMolly if you think public pensions are inviolable, just sit and wait. Maybe for only a few months, maybe for a year or two.

As SGOTI once said: "The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, they are the same."
OldShooter is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:05 AM   #95
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradaz2488 View Post
I'm not getting a pension and my RE plan assumes no SS. I do not claim to know anything about how pensions are funded and managed or even if they are more safe than SS. What I do know is if they are not able to payout the "promised" benefits no one will serve a day in prison. In today's declining moral, integrity and accountability society I would not count on any institution to deliver on any promises. I wonder if the people running these pension funds are relying on pensions to fund their retirement?
The guy running my pension(or one of the guys), get his regular police salary AND it get doubled for the extra hat he wears for overseeing the pension fund. I could over see the fund with vanguards wellington fund, my price for such great stewardship? A box of kcups every week.
__________________
Withdrawal Rate currently zero, Pension 137 % of our spending, Wasted 5 years of my prime working extra for a safe withdrawal rate. I can live like a King for a year, or a Prince for the rest of my life. I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic
Blue Collar Guy is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:19 AM   #96
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 12,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post

With few exceptions everybody here is going to get less than promised from SS... when I was young I was going to get it at 65... and it was not going to be taxed... now I am at 66 1/2 and if I earn too much I will pay some hefty taxes on it... a promise changed...
And don't forget that the amount you can earn before having to worry about your SS being taxed is NOT adjusted for inflation, thus lowering the real amount that is protected every year.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:37 AM   #97
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 12,683
What amazes me is that we keep hearing about how powerful public employee unions are, yet, they don't seem to be able to get the government institutions to properly fund their members pension plan on an on-going basis. For some strange reason, this seems odd to me.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:55 AM   #98
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
What amazes me is that we keep hearing about how powerful public employee unions are, yet, they don't seem to be able to get the government institutions to properly fund their members pension plan on an on-going basis. For some strange reason, this seems odd to me.
The old powerful unions in my opinion are gone, the large under funding is from old contracts that gave away the store for promises that our membership would vote en mass for the candidate that supported the pay raises, & pension upgrades. The last time my union went to court room binding arbitration we got 2 years of 0 % pay raises, hahahah.
__________________
Withdrawal Rate currently zero, Pension 137 % of our spending, Wasted 5 years of my prime working extra for a safe withdrawal rate. I can live like a King for a year, or a Prince for the rest of my life. I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic, I will stay on topic
Blue Collar Guy is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:06 AM   #99
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
What amazes me is that we keep hearing about how powerful public employee unions are, yet, they don't seem to be able to get the government institutions to properly fund their members pension plan on an on-going basis. For some strange reason, this seems odd to me.
What do you think of my "Occam's Razor" explanation a few posts back? I could be all wet of course, but it seems like the most plausible to me. Comments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
...
My Occam's Razor explanation is based on that analogy I made a while back - the TV or car company coming after you 20 years later, asking for more money for the old TV/car. If those companies raised the prices at the time, you would have objected and acted accordingly. So I think Occam says that the Unions/politicians agreed not to fund the pensions, as to do so would mean raising taxes and they didn't want to do that, as it would draw attention to the level of benefits these pensions provided. Instead, they said just kick the can down the road, State pensions in IL are constitutionally protected, they'll have to pay 30 years from now.

-ERD50
-ERD50
ERD50 is offline  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:19 AM   #100
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
What amazes me is that we keep hearing about how powerful public employee unions are, yet, they don't seem to be able to get the government institutions to properly fund their members pension plan on an on-going basis. For some strange reason, this seems odd to me.
It shouldn't feel odd to you if you think about what "Illinois" is.

Public unions in Illinois are deeply divided similarly to the "upstate vs. downstate" politics. Coalitions with the politicians come and go. Illinois public unions, overall, have not been powerful for years and years. Sure, an occasional teacher strike or similar gets a lot of press, but there is no real controlling clout.

What you "hear" and what "is" are different things. Can you give me an example of where you hear information concerning union power beyond some generality spoken by a talking head such as "a powerful public union is pressing for blaah, blaah, blaah"? It's a term commonly tossed around by the media because it's dramatic and gets attention.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
state pension


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State-by-state exchange rate data Htown Harry Health and Early Retirement 10 09-30-2013 02:09 PM
Net impact of living in no-state-tax state ? Delawaredave5 FIRE and Money 46 01-06-2013 08:01 PM
State residency for Armed Forces personnels for in-state college tuition. Sam Other topics 9 07-30-2007 05:06 PM
Why does health insurance vary state to state teejayevans Health and Early Retirement 130 04-22-2007 09:21 AM
I'm 51 y.o., female, state employee with 30 yrs state service 82577 Hi, I am... 4 03-26-2007 05:21 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.